There could be dampening fields. Fight too long and everything looks like Skaro from Genesis of the Daleks
How difficult SHOULD it be to steal a starship?
- Thread starter Angry Fanboy
- Start date
While the DIS Season 3 technology falls far short of what it should be they also fail to explore the technologies which throw into question what makes someone human. Holograms, androids, genetic supermen, collectives should all be considered human by the 32nd century, same as how we see a distinct transition from ENT, to TOS, to TNG in regard to genetic technology.
In ENT any genetic technology even for medical treatment is banned. In TNG they allow extreme experimentation, but humans aren't allowed arbitrary modification, only medical intervention. The next step would be for humans to no longer fear genetic modification, and to have enough knowledge to avoid unintended damage and danger. This would mirror how TOS showed constant mistrust of advanced computers, but by TNG those stories are gone and we have Data as a new kind of person.
Pretty much.
We do know that by the 7th season of Voyager, the Federation did allow genetic modification therapies to correct for deviated spine. By this time, Voyager was already receiving monthly data packets from the Federation (the first one which included tactical updates), and various other things (modern medical treatment protocols, etc. would surely be among them).
It would also explain why Geordi LaForge didn't have his eyes repaired while still developing in the womb if genetic modification treatment wasn't allowed prior to this time frame to repair these problems.
At any rate, I do agree that by the 25th or 26th century (at the latest), genetic modification ban would have been lifted and fears alleviated with better understanding of what happened in the past allowing the Federation to move forward.
I think we should have seen more progress on this particular aspect by Picard's time frame and starting to see regenerative therapies, biological immortality, etc.
I keep waiting to see if the writers will actually DO something about things like this and show proper progress (and integration which will be seen moving forward) without injecting some stupid reason that sabotages the whole endeavor and introduces a 'ban' of some kind just because of 1 mishap.
DISCO did fail spectacularly on the technology front.
Much of what they introduced (such as 'all in one badges') would have been a thing by the mid/late 25th century.
By the 26th, this would have downscaled further to say nanoscale (at which point you could create millions/billions of these technologies [tricorder, comms and personal transporter], network them together to create vastly enhanced capabilities which would be fully integrated into their uniforms - also, replicators would have been integrated into that function as well).
Granted, we have yet to see the full scope of Federation technology in the 32nd century, but I doubt we will see much beyond incremental increases that would fit more in the 25th century as opposed to the 32nd.
Talk about missed opportunity and lack of vision.
Last edited:
I suppose the real reason is it becomes too hard for the writers to keep telling new stories with something to challenge our heroes if technology becomes 'too' powerful and the setting they live in too alien. Suppose that in the 100th century we essentially have become the Q continuum and a new series is announced in that setting. I could imagine a few episodes, but an entire series that's based on the premise that we have vastly increased intelligence and all normal problems can be solved with a single thought?
"How difficult SHOULD it be to steal an android?"
KIRK: I've never trusted androids, and I never will.
This is largely going to be the answer. As much as I love Trek tech and working out different possibilities, the simple fact is a lot of technology is going to solve the vast majority of problems, quite quickly usually. That sounds great until you have to go write a dramatic scene where the audience can both identify the stakes and commiserate with the characters. Is it doable? Absolutely, but it is going to appeal to an extremely small part of a niche fan base. So how to make that premise appeal to the largest possible audience?
e
This is why you do people stories, not tech stories. People remain people, or you have nothing to relate to.
This is why you do people stories, not tech stories. People remain people, or you have nothing to relate to.
People can be dull and bores. Actually, I have an increasingly hard time relating to people in real life as is. I find more comfort in and relate better to science and technology because they make sense. People on the other hand behave in what seems to be an increasingly childish and ridiculous/erratic capacity that makes it VERY difficult to even be around most of them (and this contributes to why we are in the present state of affairs).
But that's not the point I'm trying to make.
My point is that nothing is stopping Trek in general to substantially advance the technology with what could be more realistic extrapolation and write compelling stories with characters that FIT into that setting (in essence, mesh both together so they work).
The writers need to remove themselves from their 'comfort zones' and THINK for a change (because right now it really doesn't look like they are).
Problem is, we are only TOLD that they are in the future, and yet very little has changed from a technological and scientific perspective that would have wider impacts across the galaxy post Voyager (the changes that took place are equivalent to barely decades worth of advancements... not even a century, and certainly not 930 years).
They have a team of writers, plethora of scientific hypothesis and theories about how Type III and Type IV civilizations might look like, and Trek is RIPE for exploring those themes with an ensemble of interesting characters that have an optimistic mindset its known for (as opposed to repetitive dystopian and post-apocalyptic nonsense we're fed on a regular basis in an attempt to make something 'edgy and different' - when in fact, they're just resorting to cheap laziness - its almost like Trek is turning into Star Wars).
Is it still watchable? Sure... mainly because its Trek and I'm itching to see if they're going to make a larger push into something more interesting, but come on, MAKE A FREAKING EFFORT.
I feel like Star Trek on TV reached a similar standing as Trek gaming did (a standstill with nothing really new that pushes it forward).
DIS S3 isn't even dealing with that much power. Dropping time travel is fair enough, but all the things Trek writers have complained about have work around, or just need to be embraced.
Instead of making the medicine in "Code of Honor" un-copiable, it could have been too well protected to copy, or purposefully sabotaged to foil scanning and de-replication so no pattern can be made, also resulting in it needing to be shipped by shuttle.
Transwarp beaming? Just make it so it has a 100 ly limit, or some such, and needs relay stations for further distances. Transwarp? Make it so Starfleet is exploring other galaxies. Time crunch episode? They're on the other side of the universe and can't get to the crisis in time. People rarely die in the shows, so make it explicitly difficult to permanently kill.
You can build a murder mystery around a person suffering vaporization, and everyone being surprised they had a Do Not Resuscitate order. Turns out the the file was hacked to show Do Not Resuscitate, at which point the victim is brought back to life, and the murderer is locked up. Just to be clear the murderer didn't kill the victim, their crime was keeping the person dead against their will.
VOY in this setting would have either cloned a full crew to fill the gaps using a person with a Do Clone order on their file, or holographic crew like the Doctor, made from amalgamations of uploaded people.
A perfected genesis device for whole solar system? Well, it still needs matter to write, so there's the limit. Not everyone is going to be trusted with that power either, so the Federation won't trade the technology. Differences of opinion like that can lead to stories.
There are scifi universes that do all of the above, although generally only one of 'em cool things per universe: it takes time and ingenuity to make futurism work in a whodunnit. Say, Altered Carbon covers plenty of interesting angles in the murder-of-immortals genre, but it takes all of the available storytelling minutes to make this coherent (even if in a situation where there are ten minutes per story available as all the rest is spent on gore). We can't really expect the audience to cope with multiple scifi challenges per episode, or even per five.
But doing a cool new concept in one episode and then returning to it a season later to set limitations so that there's never a need to return to it again... Will work. It's just that the first return will need to be justified dramatically, without it developing/devolving into a Reset B Button genre of its own.
Timo Saloniemi
But doing a cool new concept in one episode and then returning to it a season later to set limitations so that there's never a need to return to it again... Will work. It's just that the first return will need to be justified dramatically, without it developing/devolving into a Reset B Button genre of its own.
Timo Saloniemi
The jet would leave you very traceable. Airport and radar?
Columbo of course did a lot of this: people purposefully committing highly unconventional crimes that could only be nailed on them by an unconventional thinker.
But Star Trek: Columbo would face the uphill battle that Columbo always was one step behind the audience in realizing what it means to commit a crime via VCR or telefax or trained iguanas or whatnot, while any investigator in the Trek realm would be lightyears ahead of the audience right up to the point where he or she explains it all to us. And probably beyond.
UFP courts should be prepared to deal with cases of psychic possession or time travel. Starfleet, OTOH, generally doesn't believe heroes when they make such claims. Just the military being needlessly conservative? Or a more general example of the society coping, by shouldering the proof for extraordinary events on the victim?
Timo Saloniemi
But Star Trek: Columbo would face the uphill battle that Columbo always was one step behind the audience in realizing what it means to commit a crime via VCR or telefax or trained iguanas or whatnot, while any investigator in the Trek realm would be lightyears ahead of the audience right up to the point where he or she explains it all to us. And probably beyond.
UFP courts should be prepared to deal with cases of psychic possession or time travel. Starfleet, OTOH, generally doesn't believe heroes when they make such claims. Just the military being needlessly conservative? Or a more general example of the society coping, by shouldering the proof for extraordinary events on the victim?
Timo Saloniemi
The audience has demonstrated no willingness to explore any of that within Star Trek. Again, it would be nice if so, but the comfort zone is the audience not the writers.
Or more like the writers' perception of the comfort zone of the audience.
But how does that work? If a certain percentage of those polled complains about having something in Trek, is it worthwhile to remove that something? Most are likely to watch whole seasons anyway, so cramming different things into the season and having everybody hate some bit of it is likely to create greater overall satisfaction than leaving ashore certain things that might be of interest to some.
Even if it's a major and/or vocal percentage objecting, say, to a prominent Klu Klux Klingon character, the controversy may be milked for positive rather than negative impact. But "X% find Bajor dull" or "Y% get nothing out of warp combat" isn't such an issue.
Timo Saloniemi
But how does that work? If a certain percentage of those polled complains about having something in Trek, is it worthwhile to remove that something? Most are likely to watch whole seasons anyway, so cramming different things into the season and having everybody hate some bit of it is likely to create greater overall satisfaction than leaving ashore certain things that might be of interest to some.
Even if it's a major and/or vocal percentage objecting, say, to a prominent Klu Klux Klingon character, the controversy may be milked for positive rather than negative impact. But "X% find Bajor dull" or "Y% get nothing out of warp combat" isn't such an issue.
Timo Saloniemi
I mean, I imagine there is a bit more to it than my rather simplified idea. I think the production has a certain view of both Star Trek, the types of stories they want to tell, and the types of stories they expect the audience to accept. And I think all of that creates a cube of not wanting to push it that far. And I think the other side is that Star Trek has pretty much a reputation of being safe and secure TV which means that keeping controversy to those small things that won't really impact viewership. So, they maintain a simple formula that doesn't involve projecting too far out in the technology to avoid losing the audience while keeping all the familiar elements of Trek.
If people want an extrapolation of technology then I have a feeling other series will fill that niche. Star Trek has its own niche it wants to fill.
